Daria Kazarinova At the end of the second decade of the 21st century, problems of global security have become the main issues on the agenda of all regions of the world. Russia’s relations with the West have already entered the stage of the so-called new Cold War “with the elements of arms race, remilitarization and […]

On May 7 Vladimir Putin for the fourth time took office as the President of the Russian Federation and almost in a month made his first foreign visit of this term. On June 5 he paid a working visit to Austria and on June 8-10 – state visit to China where he also took part in the work of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit. After the formation of the government and defining priorities for its domestic development, Russia is likely to avoid further confrontation and widen the space for dialogue.

With the Moscow confrontation with the West, Russia’s Defense Ministry uses it as a tool of bolstering the image of the army within the country. Specifically, it showcases its military potential and the newest weapon to counter American missile system in Eastern Europe. Yet, while the popularity of the Russian armed forces is increasing among the population, it is not the case in the West: some hardliners see the Kremlin as a force that provokes a new arms race.

With the expulsion of the Russian diplomats by the UK, the U.S. and some European countries, President Vladimir Putin’s ranking among Russians remains robust and high. Paradoxically, the Western pressure on the Russian leader contributed to his landslide victory during the presidential race and increased the voter turnout. In this hostile environment, Russians don’t see alternatives to the current President.

The campaign of Mikheil Saakashvili, the former president of Georgia (two consecutive terms from January 2004 to November 2013) and the ex-governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region (2015-2016), against Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko reached its apex and now it is close to the end.

On November 20-21, the State Duma welcomed young parliamentarians of regional legislative assemblies, municipal deputies, young scholars and postgraduate students, businessmen and representatives of youth organizations. All of them won the contest to participate in the first All-Russian Youth Parliamentary Forum. While it is too early to talk about the practical outcome of the two-day meaningful discussion – the best initiatives can later become bills to be debated – the prominence of the event as a strategic move is already apparent and can be commented on.

The Speaker of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin has announced that Russia is ready to adopt tit-for-tat measures against the United States in the sphere of regulation of foreign mass media working in Russia. This allows us to predict a fightback in the Russian-American sanctions ping-pong match.

In June, the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker rejected a proposal from Germany to link EU funding for member states to the respect of democratic principles and human rights. The main targets of the proposed bill were Poland and Hungary, whose domestic politics have both been the subject of recent criticism from Western European states.

There are many different forms of State diplomacy: traditional, public, digital (including twiplomacy, hashtag-diplomacy, etc.). One considers digital diplomacy as the influence of the soft power on the foreign Internet audience. In the digital environment users express themselves in various ways, e.g. by publishing their own pictures – selfies. Selfie policy is a way to verity event. However, some authors believe that politicians are not interested in communication with social networks users; their selfies are a digital analog of a political self-portrait, created in order to demonstrate the appearance of their prestige towards themselves.

It can be said without exaggeration that the First World War ushered in the 20th century with the roar of guns and the collapse of four empires. Not only did it redraw the world’s political map, but also altered the social make-up of all the parties. The First World War proved to be a severe test for Russia. And it was not so much the army which lost it, but the entire society and political system. The War was the greatest tragedy, which we still cannot fully grasp. The tragedy was perceived by its contemporaries as a “betrayal”. Mutual accusations of the betrayal eroded national unity, with the broad masses guided by local rather than national interests. As a result, those who truly served their country and were ready to shed blood for the sake of the common victory were betrayed.